与家人和旁观者开展的辅助医疗研究:方法论回顾

Eillish Satchell, N. Anderson, Merryn Gott
{"title":"与家人和旁观者开展的辅助医疗研究:方法论回顾","authors":"Eillish Satchell, N. Anderson, Merryn Gott","doi":"10.1177/27536386241255387","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The evolving nature of paramedic care has resulted in a growing body of evidence considering service user experience, including the experiences of patients, family members and bystanders. As new areas of research enquiry emerge in paramedicine, it is important to review the methods, methodologies, and quality of evidence in these topic areas. A methodological review was conducted of peer-reviewed empirical studies reporting on family and bystander experiences where emergency ambulance services responded. Descriptive statistics were calculated to describe select study characteristics. Study quality was appraised using the Johanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Qualitative Research and the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. Service user engagement was evaluated using a newly adapted tool, the Service User Engagement Ladder. After searching five databases, 37 studies of varying research designs were included in this review. While overall study quality was high, there was a notable absence of theoretical discussion, particularly regarding qualitative methodologies. In assessing service user engagement, family and bystanders had very low levels of engagement in the research process. Only one study in this review utilised methods where co-construction of research occurred. Current research is dominated by Western study locations and biomedical paradigms that privilege Westernised populations and ways of considering experience, ignoring the preferences and experiences of Indigenous people and people from minoritised ethnic groups. To further develop paramedicine research involving family and bystanders, transparent reporting around the theoretical underpinnings of research must be strengthened. There is a significant opportunity to increase service user engagement in the research process. Greater attention to cultural and ethnic diversity is needed in researching family and bystander experiences.","PeriodicalId":509430,"journal":{"name":"Paramedicine","volume":"31 18","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Paramedicine research with family and bystanders: A methodological review\",\"authors\":\"Eillish Satchell, N. Anderson, Merryn Gott\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/27536386241255387\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The evolving nature of paramedic care has resulted in a growing body of evidence considering service user experience, including the experiences of patients, family members and bystanders. As new areas of research enquiry emerge in paramedicine, it is important to review the methods, methodologies, and quality of evidence in these topic areas. A methodological review was conducted of peer-reviewed empirical studies reporting on family and bystander experiences where emergency ambulance services responded. Descriptive statistics were calculated to describe select study characteristics. Study quality was appraised using the Johanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Qualitative Research and the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. Service user engagement was evaluated using a newly adapted tool, the Service User Engagement Ladder. After searching five databases, 37 studies of varying research designs were included in this review. While overall study quality was high, there was a notable absence of theoretical discussion, particularly regarding qualitative methodologies. In assessing service user engagement, family and bystanders had very low levels of engagement in the research process. Only one study in this review utilised methods where co-construction of research occurred. Current research is dominated by Western study locations and biomedical paradigms that privilege Westernised populations and ways of considering experience, ignoring the preferences and experiences of Indigenous people and people from minoritised ethnic groups. To further develop paramedicine research involving family and bystanders, transparent reporting around the theoretical underpinnings of research must be strengthened. There is a significant opportunity to increase service user engagement in the research process. Greater attention to cultural and ethnic diversity is needed in researching family and bystander experiences.\",\"PeriodicalId\":509430,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Paramedicine\",\"volume\":\"31 18\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Paramedicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/27536386241255387\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Paramedicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/27536386241255387","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

辅助医疗护理的性质不断演变,导致越来越多的证据考虑到服务使用者的体验,包括患者、家庭成员和旁观者的体验。随着辅助医疗出现新的研究领域,对这些主题领域的研究方法、方法论和证据质量进行审查非常重要。我们对经同行评审的实证研究进行了方法学回顾,这些研究报告了家属和旁观者在急救服务中的经历。我们计算了描述性统计,以描述选定的研究特征。使用约翰娜-布里格斯研究所的定性研究检查表和混合方法评估工具对研究质量进行评估。使用新改编的工具 "服务用户参与阶梯 "对服务用户的参与度进行了评估。在搜索了五个数据库后,37 项不同研究设计的研究被纳入本综述。虽然总体研究质量较高,但明显缺乏理论讨论,尤其是定性方法方面的讨论。在评估服务使用者的参与度时,家人和旁观者在研究过程中的参与度非常低。本综述中只有一项研究采用了共同构建研究的方法。目前的研究以西方研究地点和生物医学范式为主,这些范式优先考虑西方化人群和考虑经验的方式,忽视了土著人和少数民族群体的偏好和经验。为了进一步发展涉及家庭和旁观者的辅助医疗研究,必须加强围绕研究理论基础的透明报告。在研究过程中,增加服务用户的参与度大有可为。在研究家庭和旁观者的经历时,需要更多地关注文化和种族多样性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Paramedicine research with family and bystanders: A methodological review
The evolving nature of paramedic care has resulted in a growing body of evidence considering service user experience, including the experiences of patients, family members and bystanders. As new areas of research enquiry emerge in paramedicine, it is important to review the methods, methodologies, and quality of evidence in these topic areas. A methodological review was conducted of peer-reviewed empirical studies reporting on family and bystander experiences where emergency ambulance services responded. Descriptive statistics were calculated to describe select study characteristics. Study quality was appraised using the Johanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Qualitative Research and the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. Service user engagement was evaluated using a newly adapted tool, the Service User Engagement Ladder. After searching five databases, 37 studies of varying research designs were included in this review. While overall study quality was high, there was a notable absence of theoretical discussion, particularly regarding qualitative methodologies. In assessing service user engagement, family and bystanders had very low levels of engagement in the research process. Only one study in this review utilised methods where co-construction of research occurred. Current research is dominated by Western study locations and biomedical paradigms that privilege Westernised populations and ways of considering experience, ignoring the preferences and experiences of Indigenous people and people from minoritised ethnic groups. To further develop paramedicine research involving family and bystanders, transparent reporting around the theoretical underpinnings of research must be strengthened. There is a significant opportunity to increase service user engagement in the research process. Greater attention to cultural and ethnic diversity is needed in researching family and bystander experiences.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信